> TV talking heads bemoan about this, but billionaires still remain the most admired people in this country (Trump, Musk, Gates, etc).

Okay, now include Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers :)

But in all serious, I'm not talking about anecdotal "admiration" of billionaires. I'm talking about literal wealth gaps[1]. The Bottom 50% of the US held 21% of the wealth in 1970, and the Top 1% held 11% of the wealth.
21% to 11%. By 2014 this had changed to 13% to 20%. Meaning the top 1% doubled its share of the wealth while the bottom 50% lost 38% of its share of the national wealth.

> If there was anger at the older generation, we wouldn't have so many sacred cows regarding older people (social security and medicare). Average age of senator and house member has been growing over time. Hell, we just elected a 78 year old as president. How about before the revolution we just start with voting for younger people

There is massive systemic momentum keeping these programs in place untouched as they are because of gridlock in the national government, I'm not really sure how their existence supports or rejects my point. I agree younger people need to be more active in the voting process and to elect younger people. I'm optimistic about several state-level voting reforms gaining momentum in the coming years to help this.

But at least at the presidential level, our arcane primary/caucus and electoral college systems give a huge advantage to older people living in rural areas. There has been increasing consolidation of young voters in urban areas which are severely under-represented in choosing the president.

And of course campaigns are financed by large wealthy interests that are mostly controlled by older generation who have an incentive to maintain the status quo. As long as we don't have congressional term limits, poor campaign finance regulation, and a massively gridlocked Congress, it's difficult for the state of things to change from what we have, which is domination by those lobbyists and a federal government which doesn't accurately reflect its populace.

> Most people don't remember this. I'm surprised how rarely its actually discussed

What is your definition of Most People? This comes up every time I've ever seen wealth inequality, accountability and government bailouts discussed (A lot in 2020, naturally).

> This is mostly true but people don't see it that way. They're too busy yelling at people that refuse to wear masks or people that are forcing others to wear masks.

It's concretely felt among those who have lost money, jobs and opportunities. Twitter arguments about masks can be present at the same time as the literal felt effect. Anyone who has followed economic news this year has seen the repercussions even if they weren't directly impacted. In my opinion you're underestimating the mood on this, but I'd like to see some data on it.

> Again, we elected a 40+ year veteran politician. House and Senate re-election rates are still 85%+ and we're ceding ever more of our authority to the [health] experts.

I already talked about federal government above^ But I think this has actually been an incredibly interesting year in that divergence from health experts became "mainstream". Tons of people getting Covid news from people on Twitter who called out studies being used by mainstream press and national governments to justify their policy decisions. I can point out a dozen random people on twitter who I trust more than NYT or Dr. Fauci to give me relevant, contextualized analysis of different COVID-19 strategies around the world. And most importantly, there's little social risk to this. I can tell that to people and they don't think I'm a quack. Half of them do are doing the same thing.
Additionally, you're seeing protests break out across the world as governments try to lock-down and re-lock-down without legitimately strong evidence to back up their proposals.

[1] Figure 2.4.1a, https://wir2018.wid.world/part-2.html#article-39